kind of unfair to level a charge at me that ive been called an anti semite just because i question the dominant use of the word to refer to the jews.
You asked what other people are semites? well a quick look at wikipedia identifies several modern semite peoples....including iran, iraq, syria and
turkey.

i see youre getting pretty heated just over some simple questions, and i havent even disputed any of the official story yet, how interesting lol

just asking questions gets you labeled .....so no wonder no one can have a civilised conversation about this issue....they get labeled before they
even take a stand one way or the other.....i call that extremely biased and disingenuous.

what i said about the word 'shoah' is a fact....if you have not read about this term you should....and if you had no problem with the jews calling
their own genocide in effect a 'burnt offering' thats very odd....because i know i would never call the murder and cremation of my family anything
close to a 'burnt offering'....sounds sadistic to me...at least on the surface.....and thats not blaming the victim of anything.....its calling into
question the term that was chosen....and i think thats very fair game.

kind of unfair to level a charge at me that ive been called an anti semite just because i question the dominant use of the word to refer to the jews.
You asked what other people are semites? well a quick look at wikipedia identifies several modern semite peoples....including iran, iraq, syria and
turkey.

sounds to me like you might need to adjust your world view a little bit to accommodate this new information.

so i ask you...is it fair for people to have hijacked this term to refer almost exclusively to the jews? what does that say about the skewed and
biased nature of 'history' and its writers?

First of all, you're the one who had to look it up on wikipedia. Meaning that your little talking point had no meat to it until you were
forced to do the bare minimum of research.

And secondly, countries like Iraq are so multinational/multiethnic/multireligious that to apply the word Semite to the entire population is
inaccurate: you've got Sunnis, Shia, the Yazidi, even a fairly large Korean population (they built the roads).

The term hasn't been hijacked, but no one goes on about the international Iranian conspiracy or the international Syrian conspiracy. The only
reason you are getting your jimmies all rustled over usage is because the term anti-semite has been applied to you.

read what the ORIGINAL meaning of the word is....it has to do with a burnt offering. If you can show convincing evidence that there is an EARLIER
meaning of this word that doesnt have anything to do with a burnt offering please show me.

secondly, you easily brush aside the other groups that wikipedia specifically calls those of semitic descent....which is a marginalization of those
people....and thus...could be construed as anti-semitic. If you by your words deprive those people of their heritage by saying theyre less semitic
than the jews....thats blatant anti behavior.

are you an anthropologist? do you know better than the researchers who have clearly demonstrated there are other semitic peoples in the world besides
the jews? Can you show me a single example in the mainstream news media of anyone being called antisemitic for being against a person or group OTHER
than the jews?

im merely pointing out the very obvious bias in the use of this word....and you have nothing other than personal insults to offer to counter my claim
that the word has basically been hijacked....and yes hijacked because society does that with words....just like 'gay' and 'queer' have been hijacked
from their original meanings.....it happens all the time...but it doesnt make it right.

read what the ORIGINAL meaning of the word is....it has to do with a burnt offering. If you can show convincing evidence that there is an EARLIER
meaning of this word that doesnt have anything to do with a burnt offering please show me.

CONTEXT. The word, "depression" originally means a low-lying area in the ground. It also means "having the blues". There are many English words that
deviate widely from their root meaning, or have multiple meanings. Good God. You've got one literal translation of the word, but have failed
utterly to delve into context, you have no idea what other meanings that word might carry, and you probably don't much care.

secondly, you easily brush aside the other groups that wikipedia specifically calls those of semitic descent....which is a marginalization of
those people....and thus...could be construed as anti-semitic. If you by your words deprive those people of their heritage by saying they're less
semitic than the jews....thats blatant anti behavior.

But I'm not denying their heritage. What I'm saying is that the meaning is assigned by those who misuse the term on the other end from where you claim
to think it should be applied. If you are rabidly "Anti-Sioux" and someone called you "Anti-Native-American" it would still apply. No one is making
anti-Semitic arguments against the Turks, or the Iranians.

yeah, you can tell the jewish interests are really in an uproar about this too.......not.

both the US and USSR benefited from the research conducted by nazi scientists.....and ive always wondered why there is hardly a peep in any modern
media about the origins of what is surely alot of our modern understanding of the human body, brutally acquired as it was.

not a peep in any mainstream media about how american science benefited from nazi scientific research......odd enough to be a real conspiracy for
sure.

if the meaning of a word originally meant excrement and someone decided a new 'context' should be created for it so it could be used, would that be
ok with you?

THE context of the word is in its original meaning. My stance is clear...the word originally meant 'burnt offering', can you tell me what would
motivate someone to connect the slaughter of millions to a burnt offering? it just does NOT make any sense at all to me. Please explain to me how it
makes sense to use that word, which originally referred to a desirable process of offering a burnt animal to a god, to refer to an UNDESIRABLE act
against a group of people? Your example of the word 'depression' is without merit in the context of this discussion. There are many words that are
spelled the same but have different meanings, what does that have to do with using ONE word that ONLY had one meaning in antiquity, to now using it to
refer to something EXTREMELY horrible?

so let me ask you a very pointed question which i think deserves a direct answer: Do you think its ok to use a word which in antiquity was used to
refer to a burnt offering to a god, to now refer to the mass extermination of millions of people...and why?

as to the other semitic groups. I dont think i would be the only one who could interpret the manner in which you referred to other semitic groups as
biased. You inferred this by the way you constructed your questions, and the tone of your words, as if 'where is THEIR DNA database that shows the
purity of their race?', as the Jews have done. It really isnt up to you or me to establish who is pure enough to be considered semitic. If those
people consider themselves to be racially pure thats up to them. Furthermore it has been the study of anthropologists and other academics to conclude
what the other semitic groups are.....so are you denying their conclusions in that regard?

you say you havent heard of anyone being called anti semitic for making statements against turks or others....well you prove my point for me in that
regard.....the word 'anti semitic' has been hijacked by popular media to ONLY refer to Jews...and if one were to use the word in reference to anyone
OTHER than jews THAT person would probably suffer judgement as well.

so i ask you, should a person who makes anti statements about any of the other semitic groups be called an 'anti semite'? if not, why not?

we're supposed to be all about the truth here arent we? Im showing objective evidence that there are OTHER semitic groups that are marginalised in
terms of how they are referenced in the popular media. Does this NOT show a bias?

ill be clear here in saying i definitely believe alot of horrible things happened in WW2 to the jews and others. Apparently something like 20 million
russians died during the war.....thats alot of ppl as well and we almost never hear any talk about it. All loss of life in those numbers is
catastrophic.

the conspiracy side of me cant help but think this war was WANTED. In war we always lose the best and brightest....and we lost mostly MEN.....men who
if they were allowed to hang around might have not been too happy with the direction their governments were taking them in.

After the war we entered a new age of materialism such as never before. People were understandably so happy that the war was over with they just
wanted to forget it all. Unfortunately it was during the critical decade after the war that alot was slipped in under the cover of the 'friendly
fifties' and the paranoia of communism during the 'red scare'. What a joke we all now know that was, but what an effective psy op.

There were NOT 6 million Jews killed - (Zionist revisionists now bring the figure up to 22 million.)

WWII in it's entirety was a holocaust. Estimated 75 million died in that war. Between WWI and WWII about 150 million were killed so yes there was a
holocaust, it just was not segregated to euro-jews only, and a lot of Japanese died in Nagasaki when the U.S. dropped a nuke on them and Hiroshima.
Lets not forget the campaigns done in Africa either.

Apparently something like 20 million russians died during the war.....thats alot of ppl as well and we almost never hear any talk about it. All loss
of life in those numbers is catastrophic.

Absolutely. The Russians stone did not give a **** about attrition.

the conspiracy side of me cant help but think this war was WANTED. In war we always lose the best and brightest....

And my hinky side kicks in here and wants to point at an extra-human source that has a vested interest in keeping us lobotomized, and in small
numbers. But eff my hinky side, it deprives us humans of our rightful agency.

Personal disclosure, hope it's not off-topic.

My immediate forbears were part of the GTFO Russian gentry. Race hatred does the job, but class is the real sore spot. Especially if privilege is
abused.

In fact, those whom the Germans (and Americans) targeted, were isolated based on race; but the true grievances stemmed from class.

Class hatred is easily diverted into bigotry.

Check yoselves.

Also, realize that any class grievance can be answered by the oppressed. Provide for your own, and help your neighbor.

Originally posted by YodHeVauHe
1) Aryanisation would refer to Iran.
2) Hate speech is a Zionist trap - a word(s) game.
3) Anti-Semite is a Zionist word trick.
4) Holocaust is a Zionist myth as well as a word trick.
5)I never met a Jew who could give me a straight answer to the question "what is a Jew."
6)I never met a Semitic Jew.
7)There were NO gas chambers.
8)There were NOT 6 million Jews killed - (Zionist revisionists now bring the figure up to 22 million.)

edit on 25-8-2013 by YodHeVauHe because: (no reason given)

1) What about India?
2) No, hate speech is real. I am sure you are perfectly aware of that.
3) Using Zionist instead of Jew in order to not appear anti-semitical while trying to prove that anti-semite is a word trick is kind of
hypocritical,don't you think?
4) There was no specific targeting of Jews by Nazis in WW2? No anti-semitic laws? Jews were not gathered in ghettos and concentration camps for being
Jews and nothing more? Herr Goebbels should be proud....
5) Well you met one now. Jew is one that is born to Jewish mother or one that undergoes religious conversion to Judaism. See, simple.
6) Erm, Jews are Semitic nation by definition.Hebrew is semitic language and such. So if you met any Jew - congrats,you just met a Semite.
7) That is a question that can and should be investigated. Stating that it is or is not so on internet is not p[roving anything though.
8) See, you do not know anything about Holocaust or Jews. There simply were much less then 22 milions Jews prior to ww2. It is known fact to anyone
that has any knowledge about the issue. Making silly claims in the name of other people that never said anything like that is,well, silly. Trying to
pass judgement while making silly claims in the name of other people that never said anything like that is beyond silly.

ering', can you tell me what would motivate someone to connect the slaughter of millions to a burnt offering? it just does NOT make any sense at all
to me.

No dook, it doesn't make sense to you. You didn't suffer through the holocaust. You know what you sound like? The conservative commenters on Fox News
who can't fathom why black people get to use the n-word to each other, but white people can't. Maybe if you wanted to find out what the word "shoah"
meant to the survivors of the holocaust, you'd go find one and ask. Maybe if you had any desire to actually find out what the word means to a people
who have suffered the insufferable you would go out and find the answer instead of hammering home the same talking point on a electronic
forum.

The Above Top Secret Web site is a wholly owned social content community of The Above Network, LLC.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.